Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tommy mcc
  • Start date Start date
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/120531/spyware_doctor_fails_to_beat_favorites_in_latest_tests.html>
Click to expand...

Hello BTS:

You know that I agree with you much of the time, however...

That link is difficult to date and the article's scope is so narrow as
to be misleading. It makes you believe that only a handful of apps
exist that deal with spyware. By lurking our malware newsgroups, we
know that Spybot-S&D is still an excellent freeware choice when compared
to the one year rental charges for the article's favorites.

After all that, no mention is made of MBAM & SAS and SpywareBlaster as a
preventive. IMO, these are industry leaders.

I occasionally look at PCWorld to see if I can raise my respect for
their articles. I don't believe any changes are forthcoming.

My $0.02USD and warm regards,

Pete
 
1PW said:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty sent:

Hello BTS:

You know that I agree with you much of the time, however...

That link is difficult to date and the article's scope is so narrow as
to be misleading.
Click to expand...

I tried to find a date also, but there is none showing. Pages of this
type should always have a date of publication.

It was the second link that came up at google for:
review spyware doctor
 
I can't figure out why they didn't include anti spyware programs like MBAM
and SAS in their comparisons. Why would they limit themselves?
Click to expand...

Magazines only review software they've been paid to review.
 
I tried to find a date also, but there is none showing. Pages of this
type should always have a date of publication.
Click to expand...


I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I was
somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name in the
byline at the top of the article.

Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am
 
Rick said:
I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I
was somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name
in the byline at the top of the article.

Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am
Click to expand...

"Upon further review," I now find there is a date shown there, but
*only* if JavaScript is enabled in the browser. I normally have that off
- and if you check the source of the page, there is a clue why. Notice
all that "Websidestory" tracking code, and doubleclick.net links. :-/
Masking the publish date with JavaScript is .. well .. [looks for polite
derogatory word] ..

There is also a page header element:
<meta name="date" content="2005-04-28" />

If I had seen this, I wouldn't have posted the link.
 
Rick said:
I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I
was somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name
in the byline at the top of the article.

Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am
Click to expand...

"Upon further review," I now find there is a date shown there, but
*only* if JavaScript is enabled in the browser. I normally have that off
- and if you check the source of the page, there is a clue why. Notice
all that "Websidestory" tracking code, and doubleclick.net links. :-/
Masking the publish date with JavaScript is .. well .. [looks for polite
derogatory word] ..

There is also a page header element:
<meta name="date" content="2005-04-28" />

If I had seen this, I wouldn't have posted the link.
Click to expand...

I'm sure BTS. No blood, no foul.

When I too turned on JavaScript, a Grey "Apr 28, 2005 1:00 am" appeared.
The time difference is interesting...

So BTS and I were perhaps practicing a bit more safe hex at the time.

Thank you Rick.

Pete
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Rick said:
I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I
was somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name
in the byline at the top of the article.
Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am
Click to expand...
"Upon further review," I now find there is a date shown there, but
*only* if JavaScript is enabled in the browser. I normally have that
off
- and if you check the source of the page, there is a clue why. Notice
all that "Websidestory" tracking code, and doubleclick.net links. :-/
Masking the publish date with JavaScript is .. well .. [looks for
polite
derogatory word] ..
There is also a page header element:
<meta name="date" content="2005-04-28" />
If I had seen this, I wouldn't have posted the link.
Click to expand...

You don't have to allow javascript to see the date... Just click the
"print" button ;)

-jen
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Rick said:
:
I tried to find a date also, but there is none showing. Pages of
this
type should always have a date of publication.
I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I
was somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name
in the byline at the top of the article.
Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am
Click to expand...
"Upon further review," I now find there is a date shown there, but
*only* if JavaScript is enabled in the browser. I normally have that
off
- and if you check the source of the page, there is a clue why. Notice
all that "Websidestory" tracking code, and doubleclick.net links. :-/
Masking the publish date with JavaScript is .. well .. [looks for
polite
derogatory word] ..
There is also a page header element:
<meta name="date" content="2005-04-28" />
If I had seen this, I wouldn't have posted the link.
Click to expand...

You don't have to allow javascript to see the date... Just click the
"print" button ;)

-jen
Click to expand...

Hello Jen:

For me, this is even less intuitive than turning on JavaScript.

Perhaps the intent of the author and PCWorld are perfectly honorable.
But, it makes me wonder why it's done. Surely the keystrokes and time
to have the date and time come from JavaScript code are greater than
just typing it in.

Thank you Jen.

Pete
 
Back
Top